Page 333.

Page 36.

Page 396.

• He Earned an A + rating and endorsement by NRA-PVF for his perfect voting record, and is a tireless supporter of and leader on our Second Amendment rights and hunting heritage.
• He cosponsored and voted for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, stopping bogus gun industry lawsuits trying to bankrupt firearms manufacturers and dealers by holding them responsible for the acts of criminals.
• He is a sponsor of the National Right to Carry Reciprocity bill, whereby each state will recognize CCW permits just as they recognize each others drivers licenses.
• He cosponsored the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act and voted to prohibit gun confiscation during states of emergency as happened after Hurricane Katrina
• He is a cosponsor of the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act, which would repeal the gun ban for law-abiding D.C. residents and restore their right of self defense.

In a Ramadan sermon that has outraged Muslim women leaders, Sydney-based Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali also alluded to the infamous Sydney gang rapes, suggesting the attackers were not entirely to blame.

While not specifically referring to the rapes, brutal attacks on four women for which a group of young Lebanese men received long jail sentences, Sheik Hilali said there were women who "sway suggestively" and wore make-up and immodest dress ... "and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years".

...

In the religious address on adultery to about 500 worshippers in Sydney last month, Sheik Hilali said: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?

"The uncovered meat is the problem."

The sheik then said: "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."

He said women were "weapons" used by "Satan" to control men.

In October 2001, Sen. Joe Biden gave a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations saying that America's air war in Afghanistan made the United States look like "this high-tech bully that thinks from the air we can do whatever we want to do."

Four weeks before U.S. troops completely vanquished the Taliban, Kim Jong Il's pal, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, said on CNN's "Capital Gang" that the Taliban would not soon be toppled. He cited his experience with the Taliban, saying: "I think they can hold on for a while. They were very resilient."

Howard Dean joined Michael Moore in arguing that Osama bin Laden was innocent until proved guilty.

Thomas Ricks, the Washington Post reporter who currently has a book out saying the war in Iraq is not succeeding, also said the war in Afghanistan was not succeeding.

On Oct. 27, 2001, Ricks said this about Afghanistan -- not Iraq: "Although there is little evidence -- yet -- that the U.S. approach is succeeding, officials at the Pentagon and the White House said yesterday that they are sticking with their original strategy."

Our boys had taken Kabul before Ricks' article hit the recycling bin.

I am not in the mood to hear about how CNN is justified in broadcasting "great footage" of American soldiers getting picked off by Iraqi snipers because it's "great footage."

I am not in the mood to hear about how dealing with terrorists and serving as terrorist public relations officers is the only way for the American media to get "access" to the region and to awaken the American public to the horrors of war.

I am not in the mood to hear about how it's only natural for "international media outlets" like CNN to put their allegiances to global citizenry and the almighty dollar over journalistic ethics.

I'm with Rep. Duncan Hunter, whose video clip challenging CNN earlier today is must-see.

Now I want to turn my anger into something productive. I am asking you to combat CNN's glorification of Iraqi jihadist snipers by supporting American snipers. Seems like the only time American snipers earn CNN and other international media organization's attention is when they make mistakes and can be tarred as reckless killers.

Americansnipers.org (formerly Adopt a Sniper) collects items to support our troops. You can read letters from the front here. Donate here.

...

On Feb. 17, 2005, Ramos chased a van loaded with marijuana to a ditch near Fabens, where the van's driver, Osvaldo Aldrete Davila, abandoned his vehicle and ran toward Mexico.

According to court testimony, agent Compean tried to block his path, but Aldrete continued running toward the Rio Grande. Compean and Ramos then shot at Aldrete and a bullet from Ramos' gun hit the smuggler in the buttock. Aldrete made it to Mexico, wounded.

Impeachment plans began seriously coalescing in 2005, after the NY Times published classified aspects of the NSA surveillance program. In mid- December of that year, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-CA, asked a group of presidential scholars whether President George W. Bush had committed an impeachable offense when he authorized the NSA foreign surveillance program. John Dean, the long-time Bush critic of Watergate fame provided Boxer with the answer she and most other Democrats were looking for: “Bush is the first president to admit an impeachable offense,” he said.

Rogers' sole support for same-sex marriage is his distorted view of what the Bible says about homosexuality and his misapplication of the greatest commandments:

When Jesus was asked which commandment in the law was the greatest, he quoted two verses from the Old Testament: Deuteronomy 6:5: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might," and Leviticus 19:17: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Jesus said, "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Matthew 22:36-40) When we see Jesus as the center of Scripture, it enables us to focus on the heart of the gospel message: Love God and love your neighbor.

...

Rogers' adulterated agape condones conduct condemned as sin. He links Jesus' words about love to the Mosaic Law, yet Rogers disregards the Mosaic Law on the subjects of marriage and homosexuality. He wrongly claims:

The debate in the church focuses on, at most, eight texts. None of these texts is about Jesus, nor do they include any of his words. In fact, as I show in my new book, Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church, none of these texts, properly understood, refers to faithful same-sex couples as we know them today.

It cannot be imagined that God would permit homosexuals to marry when He has condemned their sexual union.

God destroyed S*dom and Gomorrah because of homosexual conduct (see Genesis 19:1-28).

Rogers, however, blames the destruction on everything but homosexual perversion:

Take for example, the story of S*dom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19). In Old Testament references to S*dom, the sins of the city are variously described as greed, injustice, inhospitality, excess wealth, indifference to the poor and general wickedness. In the New Testament when Jesus referred to the sin of S*dom, as recorded in Luke 10:12 and Matthew 10:15, he was passing judgment on cities that refused hospitality to his traveling disciples. A focus on the supposed homosexual aspect of the S*dom story only comes later in nonbiblical literature.

There is no need to resort to "nonbiblical literature" to prove "the homosexual aspect" of the S*dom story. Rogers avoids the specific words of Jude 7: "In a similar way, S*dom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire." The Apostle Peter also confirms that the cities' destruction was due to "the filthy lives of lawless men." (2 Peter 2:5-7). Nothing here is remotely related to hospitality.

God presents us with three general ways in the Bible to take care of the poor and needy: 1) through the family; 2) through the church; and 3) through individual charity. The applicable passages for these three ways are Deuteronomy 14:28, 29, Numbers 18:24, Matthew 6:1-4 and 1 Timothy 5:3-16.

In other words, Jesus is not a socialist. Nor is he a liberal. In fact, in none of the Bible passages just cited, nor in any others I know of, does Jesus, God or even Moses cite the government as the means by which the poor, needy, widowed and orphaned are housed, clothed and fed.

...

[I]t is interesting to recall that the 10th Commandment in Exodus 20:17 actually protects private property by commanding people not to covet their neighbor's house or belongings. That commands applies to the average citizen as well as the elected official, the judge and all other government officials.

Furthermore, the Bible condemns laziness and praises hard work. Proverbs 10:4 says, "Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth." Proverbs 14:23 says, "All hard work brings a profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty."

Finally, it is interesting to note that, in Mark 7:20-23, not only does Jesus Christ declare that all sex outside of heterosexual marriage, including homosexuality, pre-marital sex and adultery, is evil, he also declares that both greed and envy are evil. Thus, Jesus Christ condemns both the greed of the rich man as well as the greed of the poor man, and the envy of the poor man as well as the envy of the rich man.

At Stewart's sentencing, the judge noted that the defendant's actions had not resulted in any deaths. I'll have to remember that in case I'm ever on trial for attempted murder. "Hey, your honor, did I mention that the guy lived? Yeah, the darn gun jammed on me. Go figure, huh?"

In rejecting a 30-year sentence in favor of a 28-month sentence, the judge commended Stewart for her "public service, not only to her clients, but to the nation" for representing members of the Black Panthers and the Weather Underground. In a sane world, that would have justified a longer sentence, not a shorter one.

By contrast, terrorists imprisoned in Guantanamo for trying to kill Americans must be treated as innocent little lambs. Oh, to be there when Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman is exonerated due to previously unavailable "DNA evidence"!

After President Bush signed a law this week providing for military tribunals for terrorists being held at Guantanamo and prohibiting their torture, Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin said, "We will look back on this day as a stain on our nation's history." (Note to Democrats: It's still too soon to use "stain" as a metaphor for a White House brouhaha.)

Democrats stood outside the White House shouting "Torture is a crime!" and "Bush is the terrorist!" Yep, these are the people who claim they're going to keep us all safe, America. Everybody good with that?

By voting Democrat we can hope for two years of "investigation" and maybe even (salivate here) impeachment because President Bush actually took action to defend our nation. Never mind that Democratic Sen. Rockefeller went to Iraq a year ahead of time and told Saddam we were coming.

Let's bring back the Democrats that so tightly embrace the ACLU (which also supports NAMBLA, the North American Man Boy Love Association) and are able to twist actual physical relationships with minors into acceptable and even celebrated events. Maybe they will finally lower the age of consent (long a goal of liberal Dems). How grand!

Remember Gerry Studds? He was a Democrat congressman who actually did have sex with a 17-year-old page. The old way that required being in the same room. For fighting an ethics complaint, he received a standing ovation from his Democrat colleagues and was re-elected, staying on for 13 more years and receiving a fat pension. I'm glad I had the opportunity to support his retirement.--

The incident was shocking enough, but it cannot be viewed in isolation. The mob at Morningside Heights is just another piece of gathering evidence that the '60s are returning to campus.

...

Consider this: In the spring, anti-war protesters blocked access to a job fair at the University of California-Santa Cruz and caused Army and National Guard recruiters to be escorted off campus by university police. According to one recruiter, "the situation had degraded" to such an extent that the recruiters feared for the safety of students and law enforcement officers.

Prominent conservatives like David Horowitz, Ann Coulter, Bill Kristol and Pat Buchanan have been attacked with pies and salad dressing during on-campus speeches. At UC-San Francisco, a crowd of students blocked access to and scuffled with College Republicans whose crime was merely handing out flyers to students. At Washington State, protesters disrupted, shouted down and threatened actors in a satirical play.

...

The protesters hide behind tactics of the '60s to lash out helplessly at a culture that seems (to them) to be inexorably moving right. With every branch of government in conservative hands, with the rise of conservative media and with the increasing influence of religious conservatives, the radical left feels under siege. To make matters worse, the conservative movement is now taking aim at the left's last cultural bastion - the nation's colleges and universities - in an effort to reopen the marketplace of ideas on campus.

In the '60s, the excesses of campus radicals eventually led to a cultural backlash that ushered in the Reagan era. These same excesses committed in an era of blogs, YouTube downloads and talk radio lead to a much more immediate response. So, rather than reveling in last week's momentary triumph, Columbia's leftist radicals find themselves on the defensive, blaming others for the violence and begging the administration not to search the Internet for clues about the protesters' identities.

In the battle for the hearts and minds of the public, they have already lost.

“Following the month of August experienced by the northern half of France, the prophets of doom of global warming will have a lot on their plate in order to make our fellow countrymen swallow their certitudes,” Allegre wrote. He also accused proponents of manmade catastrophic global warming of being motivated by money, noting that “the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!”

After a short time, Kaihana came running out of the family's apartment, dressed only in her underwear, her clothes torn off, blood splattered over her severely scratched and cut body.

All that is known at this stage is that after her father began to attack her, Kaihana's mother, Yasmin (41, and a strict and devout Muslim), intervened to aid and protect her daughter.

Republican candidates all over the nation should follow Michael Steele’s example. They can turn the tide of public opinion and the growing anti-GOP sentiment. Sixty million evangelical Christians are waiting for a compelling reason to come to the polls.

...

As a black evangelical, I’ve had to think about the unpleasant prospect of a Democratically-controlled House and Senate. If the Democrats are in power, the following problems will occur: 1) There will be no protection of traditional marriage, 2) Abortion-on-demand will be encouraged, 3) Religious freedoms will be attacked, 4) The tax-exempt status of many Christian organizations will be revoked, 5) Massive amnesty will be given to illegal aliens, 6) Border protection will not be enforced, 7) We will lose clear and consistent vigilance on the war on terror, and 8) Abandonment of the Iraq war will occur without strategic understanding. The eight consequences of Democratic leadership outlined above are startling. If Democrats act consistently with their recent philosophies and style of government, they will turn the American dream into a nightmare. This is something I and millions of others are not willing to endure.

When Pelosi spokeswoman Jennifer Crider was told that the subject of the call was Pelosi's participation in the San Francisco Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Pride Parade -- the welcoming tone on the other end turned frosty. Having written the original column in this space that revealed Pelosi had marched in the parade that honored man/boy love advocate Harry Hay ("When Nancy Met Harry"), I have to say I was not all that surprised. After all, if you're busy charging the House Republican leadership with a "cover-up of Foley's internet stalking" (Crider's words as reported in the San Francisco Chronicle) of teenage boys, the last thing you would want anybody to notice is that your boss found it just ducky to lend her support to the honoring of a man who was famous for talking about men having relationships with "the nine-year-old, the eleven-year- old, the twelve-year-old, the fourteen-year-old...."

So does the repeated refusal of Nancy Pelosi to apologize or back away from her connection to the late Harry Hay's agenda have any meaning for the future of America beyond just another tired double standard? What do you think?"

Take the Dixie Chicks for example. They used their free speech to bash the president. They were darn proud to stand on the right to free speech weren’t they? Sure they were. Yet, when fans of the Dixie Chicks stopped buying their CD’s or radio stations stopped playing their music the Chicks changed their tune. They did not defend the freedom of expression of their critics did they? No, instead they started whining that their freedom of expression had been squashed.

There lies the difference between Conservatives and Leftists. No matter how grievously a Conservative group disagreed with the speaker or speakers, they would have not jumped on the stage in a bullying manner. They would have waited for their opportunity to debate the ideological points. They would have acted like adults instead of like thugs intent on intimidating their ideological opponents into silence and submission. They would have recognized that, no matter how deeply offensive the speech was, the speaker had every right to say it. Any true Conservative would not have allowed their emotions to overcome their intellect. That is something Leftists are, apparently, completely incapable of.

With this in mind, should it be at all surprising that President Bush’s job approval dropped by 3 percentage points since the September poll? Or that approval for the job Bush is doing in Iraq dropped by six points, and for the war on terror by eight?

Furthermore, given a ten point swing in the Democrat versus Republican respondent differential, should it be at all surprising that there was a four percentage point increase in folks saying they’ll vote for Democrats in November?

Forgive me, folks, but with four weeks to go before the midterm elections, it is absolutely shameful that any polling organization would do such a poor job of evenly distributing respondents by political affiliation.

In the June 2002 Battleground Poll, fifty-nine percent of Americans considered themselves “conservative” or “very conservative” and thirty-five percent of Americans considered themselves “liberal” or “very liberal.” In the September 2003 Battleground Poll, fifty-nine percent of Americans considered themselves “conservative” or “very conservative” and, again, thirty-five percent of Americans considered themselves “liberal” or “very liberal.” In the April 2004 Battleground Poll, sixty percent of Americans considered themselves “conservative” or “very conservative” and thirty-seven percent of Americans considered themselves “liberal” or “very liberal.” The June 2004 Battleground Poll showed that fifty-nine percent of Americans considered themselves “conservative” or “very conservative” and thirty-eight percent of Americans considered themselves “liberal” or “very liberal.” In the August 2004 Battleground Poll, just before the presidential election, sixty percent of Americans considered themselves “conservative” or “very conservative” and thirty-four percent of Americans considered themselves “liberal” or “very liberal.”

The last Battleground Poll was in March 2006, just seven months ago. Had all the hammering of President Bush and Republicans affected the ideological opinions of Americans? These are the results of the same question in the March 2006 Battleground Poll. Fifty-nine percent of Americans described themselves as “conservative” or “very conservative” and thirty-six percent of Americans described themselves as “liberal” or “very liberal.”

Think about this for a minute. The number of Americans who affirmatively described themselves as “conservative” or “very conservative” has not varied by more than one percent in six consecutive Battleground Polls leading up to last week. It has always been fifty-nine to sixty percent, and this is of the whole universe of those polled. If we remove those who identify themselves as “moderate” or “unsure” from the mix, then the percentage of Americans who identify themselves as “conservative” or “very conservative” rises into the sixty-two or sixty-three percent range. Neither of the two political parties has received that high a percentage of the vote in any modern congressional election.

But things have changed dramatically in the last six months, right? Wrong. Dead wrong. The October 2006 Battleground Poll shows sixty-one percent of Americans consider themselves “conservative” or “very conservative” and thirty-four percent of Americans consider themselves “liberal” or “very liberal.”